Zawahiri says Iraq will become 'fortress of Islam'

If the US pulls out it is likely that the iraqi troops will side with the militants, after all, they are just fighting for their country back. Brotherhood is stronger than nationhood, the ' militants ' are just ordinary people, iraqi civillians who want to fight for their country to drive out the unlawful occupation of their country. I think, the best way to deal with the mess is to pull out and let Syria and Turkey help rebuild.

 

Wasting your time? The article goes into depth what laws Bush has broken and the specific laws they are entrusted. You are the worst forum discusionieer I've seen in a long time that is attmepting to build his e-ego and in the same process has no idea what hes talking about.

 

Well, yes you are right. Al Qaeda need to grow up and realise the Shias are not their enemies, they need to accept their differences (you would be surprised the amount of conflict between them for such little differences).

 

Alright you want me to prove those wrong then I will. And technicaly you should be reported for that post. It is against the forum rules to post nothing but a link. But I will let that go. Just letting you know alright.

Here we go!!

Unwarranted Wiretaps

First of all wiretaps are technically legal under the Constitution. First of all the right to privacy is not guarenteed anywhere in the Constitution. The writers purposly left out the right to privacy because if they included that then they knew people could do what ever they wanted in private and could be protected by that right.

"Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This right says that we are protected by UNREASONABLE search and seizure. First of all listening t calls of suspected terrorists is not unreasonable. So that right there makes it legal. A warrant is not needed in all cases according to the Constitution. Plus we are only protected from search and seizures. Wire tapping is neither. Nothing is being seized. Nothing is being searched. That right was created for the purposed of the government forcing themselves into your house and etc. So I just proved that wrong. Bush did not break the law by wiretaping suspects.


Subverting Our Democracy

The Iraq War was of course a screw up in ways. We have found no WMD's. But Saddam certainly had intent to build some and aquire technology and even admitted so after we caught him. The ties to al queda are not incredibly strong but there are still ties. Even if he was not connected to the group he was still definitly connected to several other terror groups in the region and the evidence of thet cannot be refuted.
I do not believe Iraq was the right war at the time. I think we should of gone elsewhere to fight terror but at the same time the intentions were good. Fault intelligence was to blame for a lot of it. The entire world for the most part thought he had WMD's. It was certainly not just us.

The Failure to take care

The article mention things such as not providing troops with the proper gear. If you do not know this then I will tell you. That is done by Congress. They are the ones who bass spending bills. And they are the ones who have failed to provide the proper gear for the troops.


Torture
Technically he did not break the Constitution with this either. For that applies only to American citizens and not foreign people. Torture is still wrong but Bush did not break the Constitution in any way with this. The extent of torture has also been grossly exagerrated. People go on and on about water boarding but that has not taken place in many years because it was stoped to review things. The entire torture claim has been thrown way out of proportion.

On that entire page there is not a single valid argument to impeach Bush. I just went through them and supplied counter arguments. So why don't you do the same now.

 

You honestly have no clue when it comes to the constitution

 

That is all you can say. I disprove the crap from that article and all you can say is that. You must not be able to disprove me or you would of.

 

'technically legal' if there is a warrant.

Really now. Privacy surely appeared to be a point of the amendment you bring up next and butcher.

How do you figure? With your logic, the only reason a warrant is needed is when it is 'unreasonable' are you serious?

As those who always bitch 'but, but but times change' so do times changes to include modern items against the overwhelming power of the government.

Digital information, verbal voices, can still be considered 'searching and seizing' that information.

I mean seriously you are so far out there. If a warrant was not needed according to your logic that you are using here, then the government could tap anyones phone any time they pleased without a warrant.

Seriously man you are about the worst debater I have ever had the displeasure of meeting.

I could tear your posts apart so badly, the only problem is it's like a child with no grasp on logic and reality wrote them. They are so awful there is truly no point, it gives me a headache simply reading them.

 

Ow boi, Maliki and Talabani will work it all out, teh true Iraqi heroes [/lol]

 

He obviously has no clue at all, HMMM, reminds me of someone else,

He isn't the best anything, he is a complete idiot!

forum focus: open your eyes, you have tunnel vision - educate yourself!

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003653990_feith06.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.htm
http://thelonggoodbye.wordpress.com/2006/09/15/right-wingers-reject-senate-report-and-invent-new-saddam-al-queda-myth/

 

Looks like this debate was settled by an account ban.

 

Moqtada al-Sadr has threatened all-out war and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a visit today to Baghdad has responded:

"He is still living in Iran. I guess it's all out war for anybody but him," Rice told reporters. "His followers can go to their death and he will still be in Iran."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080420/wl_nm/iraq_dc;_ylt=AqN3J.FEOOEXjHWkmjEzfCes0NUE

In other words al-Sadr is an Iranian puppet.

 

I'm sorry but I find that kind of funny. That's like Bush's 'bring it on' yet he's nowhere near the action.

 

That's a propaganda news release. Al Sadr is an Iraqi nationalist, and not pro-Iran. Al Maliki is pro-Iran, he's the leader of the Da'wa party.

This is a carefully framed piece to paint Al Sadr as the bad guy, when government forces attacked the Mahdi army first.

Pretty interesting. Next thing you know, John McCain will be telling us that Al Queda gets support in Iran.

 

That is what happens when you make a mercenary army which is poorly trained and more importantly is poorly paid. If the foreign mercenaries from USA, England,... get 30-40,000 dollars /month to fight there and also take a lower risk then why should Iraqis get themselves killed for couple of hundred dollars a month?

 

I don't think it's about the money, no money is worth dying for anyway, could be the lack of belief and commitment to what they serve, which i can't blame them for, if that's the case.

 

You should tell this to thousands of western mercenaries serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.